Exploring The Referential Range of Etymologically Related Lexical Pairs in The Language of The Qur An A Cognitive Semantic Approach

Cogent Arts & Humanities
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaah20
Exploring the referential range of etymologically-

related lexical pairs in the language of the Qur’an:
A cognitive-semantic approach
Waheed M. A. Altohami & Ayman Khafaga
To cite this article: Waheed M. A. Altohami & Ayman Khafaga (2023) Exploring the referential
range of etymologically-related lexical pairs in the language of the Qur’an: A cognitive-semantic
approach, Cogent Arts & Humanities, 10:1, 2185969, DOI: 10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
© 2023 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Published online: 06 Mar 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 101
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaah20
Altohami & Khafaga, Cogent Arts & Humanities (2023), 10: 2185969
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
LITERATURE, LINGUISTICS & CRITICISM | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring the referential range of etymologically-
related lexical pairs in the language of the
Qur’an: A cognitive-semantic approach
Received: 31 January 2023 Waheed M. A. Altohami1,2* and Ayman Khafaga1,3
Accepted: 26 February 2023
Abstract: The present study conducts a cognitive-semantic analysis of etymologi
*Corresponding author: Waheed
M. A. Altohami, Department of English, cally-related lexical pairs in the language of the Qur’an. Based on objective selection
College of Sciences and Humanities in criteria, the lexical pair rīĥ (a singular form literally meaning wind) and riyāĥ (a
Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz
University, Saudi Arabia; Department plural form literally meaning winds) has been claimed to be representative of the
of Foreign Languages, Faculty of
Education, Mansoura University, final data set, which includes 20 lexical pairs. Building on the theoretical under
Mansoura, Egypt pinnings of descriptive semantics and frame semantics, the analysis sought to fulfill
E-mail: w.m.altohami@gmail.com
three main objectives: (a) identifying the referential range of the pair rīĥ and riyāĥ
Reviewing editor:
Jeroen van de Weijer, School of and its central reference point; (b) explaining the way the historical and theological
Foreign Languages, Shenzhen context helps to mark the connotations associated with each sense in the refer
University, Shenzhen, China
ential range; and (c) sorting the discourse functions communicated through the
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
cognitive frame(s) evoked by such a lexical pair. Findings showed that the central
cognitive frame of both lexical items is that of moving air. However, rīĥ has devel
oped, through metaphorical extension, two other senses that are not applicable to
riyāĥ: power/predominance and smell. Finally, both lexical items have been proven
to have positive, negative, and neutral connotations that have been divinely
manipulated to perform various discourse functions.
Subjects: Religion; Language & Linguistics; Literature
Keywords: conceptual schema; connotation; etymology; frame semantics; referential

range; the Qur’an
1. Introduction
Arabic, a Semitic language, involves two high varieties with different norms: Classical Arabic
(CA) and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). While CA is the language of pre-Islam poetry,
Prophetic speeches, and the Qur’an, MSA is the language of formal media, publications, and
education. It has been largely affirmed that the language of the Qur’an is a subvariety of CA.
A close reading of the Qur’anic text shows that many lexemes share the same origin (etymon),
but simultaneously they have quite different senses and connotations. Accordingly, they could
be claimed to perform different communicative functions and augment peculiar readings,
considering their underlying historical and theological contexts. In relation to this axiom,
homonymic lexemes, i.e., those with a different sense, are assumed to be interpreted differ
ently, thereby causing problems in understanding the (Qur’anic) text and in translation. It is
commonly assumed that the sense associated with a singular form is kept in the plural form.
For instance, the Qur’anic lexeme “‫( ”ﻟﺒﺎﺱ‬libās [raiment]) is homonymic as it is used to signify
good deed, e.g., ‫ﺱ ﺍﻟﺘَّْﻘَﻮﻯ َﺫﻟ َِﻚ َﺧْﻴٌﺮ‬
ُ ‫( َﻭﻟ ِﺒَﺎ‬wa libāsu at-taqwá dhālika khayr [“But the raiment of
righteousness, that is the best.”]) [7:26],1 and clothes, e.g., ‫ﻳَﺎ ﺑَﻨِﻲ ﺁَﺩَﻡ َﻗْﺪ ﺃ َْﻧَﺰﻟْﻨَﺎ َﻋﻠ َْﻴُﻜْﻢ ﻟ ِﺒَﺎًﺳﺎ ﻳَُﻮﺍِﺭﻱ َﺳْﻮﺁﺗُِﻜْﻢ‬
‫( َﻭِﺭﻳًﺸﺎ‬yā banī ’ādama qad ’anzalnā àlaykum libāsāan yuwārī saw”ātikum wa rīshāan [“O ye
© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 1 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well as to be
an adornment to you.”]) [7:26]. Though the plural form “‫‘( ”ﺃﻟﺒﺴﺔ‬albisah) is not mentioned in the
Qur’anic text, we assume that both senses of good deeds and clothes would be associated with
such a plural noun. The singular and plural forms are assumed to frame the same situation
differently. Also, there is a conceptual mapping from the physical domain of “clothes” to the
cognitive structure of “good deeds.”
The present study offers a qualitative analysis, based on a pilot quantitative analysis, of Qur’anic
lexemes sharing the same root but used with different senses in order to explain the cognitive
frames through which these lexemes acquired such different senses. The target word pair is rīĥ (a
singular form literally meaning wind) and riyāĥ (a plural form literally meaning winds), representing
a singular and a plural form, respectively. This word pair was chosen specifically because it appears
frequently in the Qur’anic text and has a wide range of referential meanings. For the identification
of the so-called referential range (i.e., range of senses) of the target word pair, Classical Arabic
dictionaries are consulted, along with vastly cited exegetical interpretations for understanding the
underlying context of each verse containing either of the target words.
In essence, the present study aims at (a) identifying and comparing the senses associated with
rīĥ and riyāĥ in the Qur’anic text (i.e., their conceptual content; Langacker, 2008), (b) linking such
senses to historical and theological contexts underlying the use of the target pair to show how
they are cognitively framed, and (c) comparing the connotations (positive, negative, and neutral)
marking the use of each word. In view of these objectives, the study questions could be stated as
follows: (1) Given the boundaries of the Qur’anic discourse, what is the referential range of the pair
rīĥ and riyāĥ? And based on such a referential range, which form is polysemic and which is
monosemic; and regarding the polysemic form, what is the central reference point from which
other senses developed? (2) Given such referential ranges, how do the context and cotext help to
mark the connotations associated with each sense? And (3) What are the discourse functions
communicated through the cognitive frame(s) evoked by such a word pair?
To offer objective answers to these questions, the present study adopts a qualitative cognitive
semantic approach. It links the foundations of descriptive semantic theories as proposed by
scholars such as Ullmann (1953, 1957), Leech (1974), Lyons (1977, 1995), and Stalnaker (2017)
to the cognitive basis underlying lexemic selection and use as proposed by Ch. J. Fillmore (1976),
Ch. Fillmore (2007) in his account of frame semantics. The cognitive-semantic approach best fits
the study objectives as it would help to trace and compare the senses (referential range) asso
ciated with rīĥ and riyāĥ (their semantic representations) in the Qur’anic text with special reference
to connotative and functional meaning aspects. Empirically, it would bridge the gap between
meaning construction and knowledge representation as it approaches meaning as inherently
experiential (or conceptual) rather than arbitrary. That is, it would show how both lexemes encode
similar or different conceptualizations of experience. In this regard, Fillmore and Baker (2010)
affirm that all content words require an appeal to the context frames in which the message they
express is motivated and interpreted in order to be understood. Furthermore, such an approach
would hopefully offer new lexicological and lexicographical insights in Qur’anic linguistic research,
as it would open new avenues of research to explore similar etymologically related Qur’anic
lexemes in terms of their referential range as well as their possible textually-invoked cognitive
frames.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses related literature. Section 3
explicates the theoretical framework of descriptive semantics, with particular emphasis on deno
tation, connotation, referential range, and cognitive framing. The methodology is explained in
Section 4 in terms of data description and procedure of analysis. Section 5 analyses the data and
states the main findings. Section 6 discusses the study findings and offers insights for further
research.
Page 2 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
2. Literature review
In Classical Arabic, lexemes with the same form and variant senses are known as “al-”alfāž al-
mutawaāţi’ah’ (i.e., words with similar forms and different senses; Al-Siyūtī, 2008; Al-Zarkashī,
1984). The verb ‫’ﻟﺒﺲ‬labisa’, for example, has several senses in the Qur’anic text, including: (a) to
confound, as in “‫( ”َﻭَﻻ َﺗْﻠِﺒُﺴﻮْﺍ ﭐْﻟَﺤ َّﻖ ِﺑﭑْﻟ ۖﺒِﻄﻞ َﻭَﺗْﻜُﺘُﻤﻮْﺍ ﭐْﻟَﺤ َّﻖ َﻭﺃَﻧُﺘْﻢ َﺗْﻌﻠَُﻤﻮَﻥ‬wa lā talbisū al-ĥaqqa bil-bāţili wa taktumū
al-ĥaqqa wa “antum ta`lamūna [And do not confound the truth with the untruth and do not keep
back the truth and you know]) [2:42], (b) covering, as in ‘‫( ’َﻭُﻫَﻮ ﺍﻟَِّﺬﻱ َﺟَﻌَﻞ ﻟَُﻜُﻢ ﺍﻟﻠَّْﻴَﻞ ﻟَِﺒﺎًﺳﺎ‬wa huwa al-ladhī
jaàla lakumu al-layla libāsāan [He is the One Who has made the night for you (to be) a garment])
[25:47], (c) clothes, as in ‘‫( ’ﻳَﺎ ﺑَِﻨﻲ ﺁَﺩَﻡ َﻗْﺪ ﺃَﻧَﺰْﻟَﻨﺎ َﻋﻠَْﻴُﻜْﻢ ﻟَِﺒﺎًﺳﺎ ُﻳَﻮﺍِﺭﻱ َﺳْﻮﺁِﺗُﻜْﻢ‬yā banī ”ādama qad ’anzalnā àlaykum
libāsāan yuwārī saw”ātikum [We have readily sent down on you a garment to overlay your
shameful parts]) [7:26], and (d) good dead, as in “‫ﺱ ﺍﻟَّﺘْﻘَﻮٰﻯ ۖﺫﻟَِﻚ َﺧْﻴٌﺮ‬ ُ ‫( ”َﻭﻟِﺒَﺎ‬wa libāsu at-taqwá dhālika
khayrun [and the garment of piety, that is the most charitable]) [7:26].
In addition to the concept of “al-”alfāž al-mutawaāţi’ah’, Arabic studies maintain a pool of terms
that capture the essence of the phenomenon of having words with similar forms and (un)related
senses, including “al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir” (senses and referents), al-mushtarak al-lafžī (polys
emy, i.e., words having the same form and related meanings), at-taraāduf (synonymy, i.e., words
with the same or similar meaning), and at-taşrīf (declension, i.e., the alteration of a word’s form by
some inflection, usually to express how it functions syntactically in a sentence). These terms could
be traced in different annotated manuscripts such as Al-Thaàālibī (1932), Al-Damaghaānī (1983),
Al-Qaāri’ (1988), Bin-Sallām (2007), and Bin-Sulaymaān (2011). As an independent discipline of
Qur’anic studies, “al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir” studies lexemes with a similar form and variant
senses, as “al-wujuūh” stands for senses and “an-nažaā’ir” stands for referents (see Section 3).
That is, while “al-wujuūh” refers to the different senses of lexemes as they are used in different
contexts in the Qur’anic text, “an-nažaā’ir” refers to the lexemes used across the Qur’anic text
even if they do not keep the same form. For instance, in the Qur’anic text, the referent “‫( ”ﺑَ ۡﻌِﻞ‬ba`l)
stands for both “a husband” as in “‫( ”َﻗﺎﻟَْﺖ َﻳﺎ َﻭْﻳﻠََﺘٰﻰ ﺃَﺃَﻟُِﺪ َﻭﺃََﻧﺎ َﻋُﺠﻮٌﺯ َﻭۖﻫَﺬﺍ ﺑَْﻌﻠِﻲ َﺷْﻴًﺨﺎ‬qālat yā waylatā ’a’alidu wa
‘anā àjūzun wa hadhā ba`lī shaykhāan [She said: Alas for me! Shall I bear a child, seeing I am an
old woman, and my husband here is an old man?]) [11:72], and “an idol” as in “‫ﺃََﺗْﺪُﻋﻮَﻥ َﺑْﻌًﻼ َﻭَﺗَﺬُﺭﻭَﻥ ﺃَْﺣَﺴَﻦ‬
‫‘( ”ﺍْﻟَﺨﺎﻟِِﻘﻴَﻦ‬atad`ūna ba`lāan wa tadharūna ‘aĥsana al-khāliqīna [Will ye call upon Baal and forsake
the Best of Creators]) [37:125].
Furthermore, it should be noted that Arab scholars were much concerned with verses (‘ayāt)
that have similar lexico-syntactic structures in the Qur’an for two reasons. First, they aimed at
highlighting the lexical semantic relations linking Qur’anic lexemes, especially polysemy (cf., Al-
àwā, 1998; Al-Qaràāwī, 1999) as well as negotiating stylistic and rhetorical differences among
similar or quasi-similar verses. Second, they sought to facilitate memorizing the Quran. In this
regard, Al-Damaghaānī (1983) focused on listing the derivatives of the same lexeme. For instance,
in the Qur’anic text, based on the stem “‫( ”َﺫَﺭَﻭ‬dharawa) derivatives such as “dharnī” (leave me),
“tadhrūhu ar-riyāĥ” (the windows do scatter) and “mithqāla dharrah” (an atom’s weight) abound.
Furthermore, other studies sought to list variant senses of the same referent. ‘Ibn Al-Jawzī (1987),
for example, listed eighteen senses for “‫( ”ﺍﻟﺤﻖ‬al-ĥaq), including “God”, “the Quran”, “Islam”,
“justice”, and “truth”. Strikingly, other studies sought to list the extraordinary senses of
a referent. ‘Ibn Al-’imād (2004), for example, mentioned that the lexical item “‫( ”ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻗﺎﻥ‬al-furqān)
is used in the Qur’anic text to signify “triumph”, “outlet”, and “the Qur’an”.
Given the scope of the present study, many studies have addressed the semantic relations built
on the idea of sameness of meaning, especially synonymy and polysemy. For instance, Abdul-
Ghafour et al. (2019) explored the interrelation between synonymy and polysemy in the Qur’anic
text as instantiated by the lexical pair “al-asfār” and “al-kutub” (the Books) and their translations.
Findings showed that though the two words are commonly viewed as near-synonyms, it has been
proven that they semantically differ in some aspects as far as their contextual meanings are
concerned. Yet, available translations do not capture such semantic differences. Furthermore,
Page 3 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
findings revealed that though the plural form “alkutub” is polysemous in the Qur’anic text, it is
literally translated as “the books.”
Likewise, Musahar et al. (2019) analyzed the different senses of the polysemous words “Imam”
and “Ummah” in the Qur’anic text and their translations into English and Malay. For this reason,
the study relied on one of the officially used interpretation books in Malaysia known as Tafsir
Pimpinan al-Rahman and Yusuf Ali’s translation. Findings revealed that Ali’s translation of the
target lexical pair is literal, though the interpretations offer precise senses for each lexical pair. In
this regard, Ali et al. (2014) highlighted the translation problems resulting from not considering the
polysemic nature of some Qur’anic lexemes. Furthermore, Alhaj (2015) considered polysemous
words in the Qur’an untranslatable unless an interpretative translation was conducted based on
available exegetical interpretations.
To recap then, it is clear that little attention has been paid to the exploration of word forms
derived from the same root but developed different senses. Also, none of the available studies
sought to trace the central meaning from which other senses are derived. Furthermore, from
a methodological perspective, previous studies did not offer clear quantitative and qualitative
rubrics for the selection of polysemous Qur’anic words, and the semantic analyses offered in
these studies did not dig into the conceptual schemas forming any polysemy network in the
Qur’anic text. Therefore, the present study would hopefully fill in this gap using mixed (quantitative
and qualitative) methods to explore the referential range of the lexical pair meeting the require
ments of selection (see Section 4), explain which of the pair is polysemic and the central reference
point from which other senses developed, investigate the role of context and cotext in highlighting
the connotations associated with each sense, and in interpreting the discourse functions commu
nicated through the cognitive frame or frames evoked by such a lexical pair.
3. Theoretical framework
Based on the Saussurean concept of sign (Saussure, 1916), a lexeme is construed as a sign with
a particular form (signifier) and a particular meaning or meanings (signified). Each lexeme is
rendered semantically distinct through a set of semantic features forming its descriptive meaning.
Over time, and as a result of our expanding experiences and changing worldviews, such semantic
features are updated or deleted. Accordingly, particular meanings disappear, and new meanings
are born (Sweetser, 1990). The set of developed meanings of a lexeme or a linguistic expression is
called its referential range. The referential range of language expressions “is fixed by their meaning
in the language. But their actual reference depends upon a variety of contextual factors” (Lyons,
1995, p. 294). The way language expressions are given their semantic values falls under the scope
of descriptive semantics, that is concerned with “the semantic properties” of words (Epstein, 2014,
p. 44). As Stalnaker (2017) avers, it “assigns semantic values to the expressions of the language
and explains how the semantic values of the complex expressions are a function of the semantic
values of their parts” (p. 535). Furthermore, descriptive semantics concerns all the matters that
help with evaluating the truth or falsity of the sentence in which a particular lexeme or expression
is used (Epstein, 2014).
Broadly speaking, each lexeme is claimed to have both denotative and connotative meanings.
Denotative (or descriptive) meaning refers to the basic, explicit referential meaning of a lexeme
(denotatum) as shared by all people, whereas connotative (or associative) meaning refers to the
associations, emotional suggestions, attitudes, and communicative power that a lexeme carries in
different contexts (Lyons, 1977; Raghunath, 2022; Rambaud, 2012). Based on the context, con
notations may be neutral, positive, or negative, as represented by expressions such as “people with
no fixed addresses”, “homeless”, and “vagrants”, respectively. For Barthes (1967), connotative
meaning is naturalized, conventionalized, and finally established as a primary denotative meaning.
Relatedly, the terms “denotative” and “connotative” meanings are sometimes replaced by “refer
ence” and “sense”. While reference signifies a real-world object, sense signifies the mental image it
Page 4 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
expresses. In a natural language, reference includes nouns, noun phrases, and referring and non-
referring expressions. However, a sense of an expression is realized through a set of sense relations
such as synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, meronymy, homonymy, etc. Lyons (1995) affirms that the
denotation and reference of an expression are not the same. He argues that the denotation of an
expression is invariant and utterance-independent. Meanwhile, the reference of an expression is
variant and utterance-dependent. For instance, the lexeme “dog” denotes a four-legged canine
animal, but it could be lexically referred to as “friend” or “love” in a particular context or semantic
situation. Such flexibility in propositional meanings pertaining to lexemes has been supported by
common theories about the lexicon, which entail that the semantics of words are underspecified and
that more particular information is filled in by the context (e.g., Blutner, 1998, 2004; Reyle, 1993), and
is further advocated by Hogeweg’s (2019) argument that the interpretation of words entirely depends
on the contextual environment wherein these words occur.
A semantic situation, according to Ullmann (1953, p. 228), is formed considering three variables:
(1) the motivated or unmotivated nature of the name (i.e., the acoustic shape of the word),
referring to simple/derivative, or compound terms respectively, (2) the greater or lesser precision
of the sense (i.e., referential range), (3) the emotive elements that may develop around either
component (i.e., associations). Based on these three variables, it is possible to conclude that Arabic
tends to favor unmotivated word structure with a plethora of derivatives. Also, in general, Arabic
lexemes tend to have a broad referential range that covers both descriptive and non-descriptive
semantic properties. Relatedly, each sense is presumed to have positive, negative, and neutral
associations. Each sense is formed in terms of a set of semantic features that distinguish
a particular lexeme from other lexemes by affirming (+) or negating (-) their presence. The analysis
of such semantic features is known as “componential analysis” or “lexical decomposition” (Allan,
2001, 2014; Goddard, 1998; Leech, 1974). One common example in this regard, stool can be
distinguished from sofa as follows: stool (- with black, + with legs, + for a single person, + for
sitting,—with arms, + rigid) and “sofa” (+ with back, + with legs,—for a single person, + for sitting, +
with arms, + rigid).
There remains a question: how do language users schematize the proposition of an utterance in
view of the lexemes used? Fillmore’s approach to “frame semantics” (Barsalou, 1992; Ch. Fillmore,
2007; Ch. J. Fillmore, 1976; Löbner, 2002, 2021) would offer an answer to such a question as it
relates linguistic semantics to encyclopaedic knowledge. A semantic frame covers the set of facts
specifying the “characteristic features, attributes, and functions of a denotatum, and its charac
teristic interactions with things necessarily or typically associated with it” (Allan, 2001, p. 252). The
lexical meaning of a lexeme thus becomes incomplete unless all essential knowledge related to
this lexeme is accessed.
In any utterance, lexical choices are made to help with building particular cognitive frames, as
lexemes represent categories of experience underlain by a motivating situation (Ch. Fillmore, 2007,
p. 238). A cognitive semantic frame is thus perceived as a structured, dynamic, and context-
dependent way of interpreting experiences in terms of a motivating context (Barsalou, 1992).
That is, in a particular context, a lexeme evokes a frame of semantic knowledge and other
linguistic material associated with a potential frame. Furthermore, a lexeme might acquire
a new sense (or new senses) as a novel schematization is offered, and hence a new cognitive
frame is established. This means that the same lexeme is said to motivate different cognitive
frames as long as the context varies, provided that the receptor has enough and appropriate
knowledge of such context. By way of demonstration, the lexemes shore and coast, though
partially synonymous, designate two cognitive frames that schematize the world differently.
While shore is a boundary between land and water from the water’s point of view, coast is
a boundary between land and water from the land’s point of view (Fillmore, 2007, p. 246).
Likewise, the same lexeme or form could develop different senses across genres and across
different historical periods. The developed senses could be related or unrelated. If they are related,
Page 5 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
they are semantically described as polysemous. As mentioned earlier, polysemy refers to the
coexistence of many different, but related, meanings for a word or a phrase. For instance, the
lexeme bright means both shining and intelligent; however, if the senses of one lexeme are
unrelated, they are semantically described as homonymic. Homonymy refers to the existence of
unrelated words that sound or look the same. For instance, the lexeme bat means both “a stout
solid stick” and “a nocturnal flying mammal”. That is, they are etymologically distinct (Palmer,
1976).
Building on the concept of polysemy, the central meaning from which other senses are derived is
referred to as “conceptual schema” (Antonova, 2020; Cruse, 2017; Talmy, 1983) or “central
reference point” (Rice, 1996; Tribushinina, 2008). Taking the conceptual schema as the core
node of any polysemy network, three developments might happen, and therefore new senses
emerge. Firstly, the conceptual schema is slightly modified by adding or removing particular
semantic features. Second, the conceptual schema’s reference is specialized. Finally, language
users implement a kind of metaphorical mapping between one conceptual schema and another.
With new mappings, the polysemy network expands.
4. Methodology
This section offers a description of the data, data collection procedure, and procedure of analysis.
4.1. Data collection and description

The Qur’an is the principal religious text of Islam, commonly believed to be a revelation of God to
the Prophet Muhammad over a period of 23 years. It is largely claimed to be the finest, most
inimitable piece of literature in Classical Arabic. Technically described as a corpus of Classical
Arabic, the Qur’an includes 114 Meccan and Medinan chapters, each of which involves 6236 verses,
with a total of 77.439 words. In view of the study objectives stated earlier, the present study
applies a corpus-based mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) descriptive semantic
approach to offer a cognitive-semantic analysis of two etymologically related Qur’anic lexical
pairs thought to have diverse senses. A mixed-method approach is the one that “combines
different paradigms and research traditions in an effort to arrive at a more complete under
standing of the object under investigation” (Loewen & Plonsky, 2016, p. 117). Therefore,
a preliminary quantitative analysis was conducted to collect these lexical pairs and then calculate
their frequency and keyness. For data collection, Al-Bāĥiṯ Al-Qur’aānī (The Qur’anic Researcher,
available at https://tafsir.app/) was used. The final dataset included 20 etymologically related
lexical pairs, as shown in Table 1 below. A literal translation is offered in parentheses.
For the sake of selecting a representative pair for a full-fledged analysis, two criteria have been
set: the frequency of both lexical items is >10, and their referential range is considerably variant.
Therefore, after the quantification of such pairs, all the potential senses of each pair, in light of its
underlying historical and theological context, are configured based on dictionaries of Classical
Arabic (Lane, 1968; Al-Rāzī, 1986; ‘Ibn Manžūr, 1993) and vastly-cited exegetical interpretation
resources (‘Ibn àshūr, 1984; Al-Qurtubī, 2006; Al-Zamakhsharī, 2009; M. F. Ar-Rāzī, 1981). The
etymologically-related pair that fulfilled the two criteria is rīĥ (a singular form meaning “wind”) and
riyāĥ (a plural form meaning “winds”).
4.2. Procedure of analysis

The procedure of analysis followed in the present study operates in three steps. Firstly, it identifies
the etymon and semantic components of rīĥ that could be naturally extended to its plural form
and riyāĥ so that its prototypical denotative meaning is configured. In so doing, the referential
range of each lexeme is defined. Secondly, to offer an integrative semantic profile of the target
lexical pair, it explores and compares the connotations associated with rīĥ and riyāĥ in their co-
text as well as their historical-theological context. At this stage, four exegeses are consulted: Tafsīr
al-fakhr al-rāzī (M. F. Ar-Rāzī, 1981), Tafsīr At-taĥrīr wa-at-tanwīr (‘Ibn àshūr, 1984), Al-jaāmi` li-
’aĥkaām Al-Qur’aān (Al-Qurtubī, 2006), and Tafsīr al-kashāf (Al-Zamakhsharī, 2009). Thirdly, it
Page 6 of 23
Table 1. List of etymologically-related lexical pairs forming the initial dataset
No. Lexical pairs Meaning Freq. No. Lexical pairs Meaning Freq.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
1 ‫ﺃَ ۡﻣِﻦ‬ security 5 11 ‫ِﺭﯾﺢ‬ wind 18

‘amn rīĥ
ِ
‫ﺃََﻣَﻨﺔ‬ reassurance 2 ‫ّﺭَﯾﺎَﺡ‬ winds 10
’amanah riyāĥ
ِ
2 ‫َﻣ ّﯿِﺖ‬ dead 15 12 ‫َﻧ َّﺰَﻝ‬ send down 24

mayyit nazzala
‫َﻣ ۡﯿَﺘَﺔ‬ carrion 10 ‫ﺃَﻧَﺰَﻝ‬ send down 123
maytah ‘anzala
3 ‫ُﻛۡﺮﻩ‬ hatred 1 13 ‫ﺃَۡﻭۖﺻﻰ‬ enjoin upon 1
kurh ‘awşā
‫َﻛۡﺮﻩ‬ unwillingness 5 ‫ﺻۡﯽ‬
َّ ‫َﻭ‬ enjoin upon 6
karh waşşa
4 ‫ِﻧ ۡﻌَﻤﺔ‬ favour 45 14 ‫َﻫۡﻮﻥ‬ gentleness 1
ni`mah hawn
‫َﻧِﻌﯿﻢ‬ bliss 17 ‫ُﻫﻮﻥ‬ degradation 4
na`īm hūn
5 ‫َﯾۡﺸِﺮﯼ‬ barter 1 15 ‫ِﻋَﺒﺎﺩ‬ bondmen 99
yashrī ìbād
‫ﭐۡﺷَﺘَﺮٰﻯ‬ purchase 10 ‫َﻋِﺒﯿﺪ‬ slaves 5
ashtará àbīd
6 ‫ﭐۡﻟُﻌُﯿﻮﻥ‬ springs 10 16 ‫ﭐۡﻟَﻘٰـﺎِﺳُﻄﻮَﻥ‬ the inequitable 2
al-ùyūn al-qāsiţūn
‫ﭐَۡﻷۡﻋﯿُِﻦ‬ eyes 22 ‫ﭐۡﻟُﻤۡﻘِﺴِﻄﯿَﻦ‬ the equitable 3
al-’a`yun al-muqsiţīn
7 ‫ِﻣۡﺜﻞ‬ like of 75 17 ‫ﭐۡﺳَﻄﺎُﻋۤﻮ۟ﺍ‬ surmount 1
mithl asţā`ū
‫َﻣَﺜﻞ‬ parable 71 ‫ ﭐۡﺳَﺘَﻄﺎُﻋﻮ۟ﺍ‬astaţā`ū bore 4
mathal
(Continued)
Page 7 of 23
Table1. (Continued)
No. Lexical pairs Meaning Freq. No. Lexical pairs Meaning Freq.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
8 ‫َﺗَﺒَّﺪﻝ‬ change 6 18 ‫َﺗۡﺴِﻄﻊ‬ endure 1

tabaddal tasţi`
‫ َﺗَﺘَﺒَّﺪﻝ‬tatabaddal exchange 1 ‫َﺗۡﺴﺘَِﻄﯿﻊ‬ be able 6
tastaţī`
9 ‫ِﻣّﺘُۡﻢ‬ die 1 19 ‫ﺃَۡﺩَﺑﺎﺭ‬ backs 13
mittum ‘adbār
‫ُﻣّﺘُۡﻢ‬ die 3 ‫ﺇِۡﺩَﺑﺎَﺭ‬ drawing 1
muttum ‘idbār
10 ُ
‫ﺿﺮ‬ adversity 21 20 ‫ﭐۡﻟَﺨﺎِﺳِﺮﯾﻦ‬ losers 24
đurr al-khāsirīn
‫ﺿﺮ‬
َ harm 9 ‫ﭐۡﻟَﺨٰﺎِﺳُﺮﻭﻥ‬ the losers 4
đarr al-khāsirūn
Page 8 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
configures the cognitive frames and schema (Ch. Fillmore, 2007; Ch. J. Fillmore, 1976) underlying
the use of each lexeme in the target pair. It is to be noted that the selected verses are quoted in
their original form of production, i.e., Classical Arabic, and are accompanied by a Classical Arabic
transliteration, i.e., words are phonetically transcribed in the manner of production pertinent to
their original form, as well as an English translation adopted from Ali’s, 1983/1934 [1983])
translation. The phonetic symbols used in the Arabic transliteration are adopted from the
International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) with a few differences to tune with the phonetic nature of
some sounds in Arabic. Also, an appendix of the symbols used in this study is attached at the end
of this paper.
5. Data analysis
Although rīĥ and riyāĥ have different phonetic and orthographic forms, both are derived from the
stem “‫ ”ﺭﻭﺡ‬r-w-ĥ (pronounced rawaĥa(. Rīĥ is a singular form whose universal semantic compo
nents are +natural force, +air, +blowing, and +speed, forming the semantic frame of “wind”. The
plural form is riyāĥ. Both lexemes are distributed in the Qur’anic text as shown in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, rīĥ is more frequent in the Qur’anic text. In terms of the referential range of
rīĥ and riyāĥ, both share the prototypical sense of “wind” or “moving air”. This sense could be
traced in verses [3:117], [10:22], [14:18], [17:69], [21:81], [22:31], [30:51], [33:9], [34:12], [38:36],
[41:16], [42:33], [46:24], [51:41], and [54:19]. The following verses serve as good examples.
ِ
َ ‫ﺍﻟﻠَُّﻪ ﺍﻟَِّﺬﻱ ُﻳْﺮِﺳُﻞ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳﺎَﺡ َﻓُﺘِﺜﻴُﺮ َﺳﺤﺎﺑًﺎ َﻓَﻴْﺒُﺴُﻄُﻪ ِﻓﻲ ﺍﻟ َّﺴﻤﺎِﺀ َﻛْﻴ‬
• [30:48] ‫ﻒ َﻳﺸﺎُﺀ‬
Al-lahu al-ladhī yursilu ar-riyāĥa fatuthīru saĥābāan fayabsuţuhu fī as-samā’i kayfa yashā’
“It is Allah Who sends the Winds, and they raise the Clouds: then does He spread them in the sky
as He wills”
Table 2. The frequency of rīĥ and riyāĥ in the Qur’anic text

Rīĥ Riyāĥ
No. Chapter Verse No. No. Chapter Verse No.
1 ‘Āli Ìmrān [3: 117] 1 Al-Baqarah [2: 164]
2 Al-’Anfāl [8: 46] 2 Al-’A`rāf [7: 57]
3 Yūnis [10: 22] 3 Al-Ĥijr [15: 22]
4 Yūsuf [12: 94] 4 Al-Kahf [18: 45]
5 ‘Ibrāhīm [14: 18] 5 Al-Furqān [25: 48]
6 Al-’Isrā’ [17: 69] 6 An-Naml [27: 63]
7 Al-’Anbyā’ [21: 81] 7 Ar-Rūm [30: 46]
8 Al-Ĥaj [22: 31] 8 Ar-Rūm [30: 48]
9 Ar-Rūm [30: 51] 9 Fāţir [35: 9]
10 Al-’Aĥzāb [33: 9] 10 Al-Jāthiyah [45: 5]
11 Saba’ [34: 12]
12 Şād [38: 36]
13 Fuşşilat [41: 16]
14 Ash-Shūraá [42: 33]
15 Al-’Aĥqāf [46: 24]
16 Adh-Dhāriyāt [51: 41]
17 Al-Qamar [54: 19]
18 Al-Ĥāqqa [69: 6]
Page 9 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
However, verses [8:46] and [12:94] offer two other senses for “rīĥ” not shared by “riyāĥ”. In verse
[8:46] below, “rīĥ” is used in the sense of power, predominance, or good fortune.
• [8:46] ‫َﻭﺃَِﻃﻴُﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠََّﻪ َﻭَﺭُﺳﻮﻟَُﻪ َﻭَﻻ َﺗَﻨﺎَﺯُﻋﻮﺍ َﻓَﺘْﻔَﺸﻠُﻮﺍ َﻭَﺗْﺬَﻫَﺐ ِﺭﻳُﺤُﻜْﻢ‬
wa ‘aţī`ū allaha wa rasūlahu wa lā tanāza`ū fatafshalū wa tadh/haba rīĥukum
“And obey Allah and His Messenger; and fall into no disputes, lest ye lose heart and your power
depart; and be patient and persevering: For Allah is with those who patiently persevere.”
Indeed, in verse [8:46], a new semantic frame is evoked through the metaphorical mapping of
the cognitive frame of wind as a natural force to the cognitive frame of “power” on the part of
states. Here, God orders Muslims to obey Him and His Messenger; otherwise, their power and vigor
depart. Equally important, in verse [12:94], the prototypical sense of “wind” is made more specia
lized through a carrier-carried relationship.
ِ ِ
• [12:94] ‫ﻒ ﻟَْﻮﻻ ﺃَْﻥ ﺗَُﻔﻨُّﺪﻭِﻥ‬
َ ‫ﺼﻠَِﺖ ﺍْﻟِﻌﻴُﺮ ﻗﺎَﻝ ﺃَُﺑﻮُﻫْﻢ ﺇِﻧّﻲ َﻷِﺟُﺪ ِﺭﻳَﺢ ُﻳﻮُﺳ‬
َ ‫َﻭﻟََّﻤﺎ َﻓ‬
wa lammā faşalati al-`īru qāla “abūhum ”innī la’ajidu rīĥa yūsufa lawlā ’an tufannidūn
“When the caravan left [Egypt], their father said: “I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph: Nay,
think me not a dotard.”
In verse [12:94], rīĥ is used in the sense of “smell” as air is designed to carry smell. Therefore, it
could now be stated that the referential range of rīĥ in the Qur’anic text covers three senses: (1)
wind, (2) predominance, and (3) smell. The relatedness of senses (1) and (3) renders rīĥ as
polysemic, while the senses (1) and (2) render it homonymic, as “smell” departs from the proto
typical sense of “wind”. Yet, the plural form riyāĥ keeps the sense of “wind” throughout the
Qur’anic text. Senses (2) and (3) are contextually motivated, and therefore they are mutually
exclusive. That is, they suppress one another across contexts. Each sense provokes a particular
frame of attributes and, accordingly, a new conceptual schema.
5.1. Rīĥ
In exploring the broader context of the verses in question and the co-text coloring the lexical pairs
rīĥ and riyāĥ, it becomes clear that each lexeme has different connotations. Starting with the
prototypical sense of wind, the cognitive frame invoked concerns the processes of creating and
sending winds, moving ships, causing rain, fertilizing plants, and punishing disbelievers. God is
explicitly and implicitly construed as the sender of rīĥ. Consider the following verses.
• [3:117] ‫ﺻﺎَﺑْﺖ َﺣْﺮَﺙ َﻗْﻮٍﻡ َﻇﻠَُﻤﻮﺍ ﺃَْﻧُﻔَﺴُﻬْﻢ َﻓﺄَْﻫﻠََﻜْﺘُﻪ‬

َ َ‫ﺻ ٌّﺮ ﺃ‬
ِ ‫َﻣَﺜُﻞ َﻣﺎ ُﻳْﻨِﻔُﻘﻮَﻥ ِﻓﻲ َﻫِﺬِﻩ ﺍْﻟَﺤَﻴﺎِﺓ ﺍﻟُّﺪْﻧَﻴﺎ َﻛَﻤَﺜِﻞ ِﺭﻳٍﺢ ِﻓﻴَﻬﺎ‬
mathalu mā yunfiqūna fī hadhihi al-ĥayāati ad-dunyā kamathali rīĥin fīhā şirrun “aşābat
ĥartha qawmin žalamū ”anfusahum fa’ahlakathu
“What they spend in the life of this [material] world May be likened to a wind which brings
a nipping frost: It strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls”
• [41:16] ‫ﺻًﺮﺍ ِﻓﻲ ﺃََّﻳﺎٍﻡ َﻧِﺤَﺴﺎٍﺕ‬ َ ‫َﻓﺄَْﺭَﺳْﻠَﻨﺎ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻬْﻢ ِﺭﻳًﺤﺎ‬

َ ‫ﺻْﺮ‬
fa’arsalnā àlayhim rīĥāan şarşarāan fī ’ayyāmin naĥisātin
“So We sent against them a furious Wind through days of disaster”
Page 10 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
In verse [3:117], rīĥ is described as “fīhā ṣir” (clamoring cold). In Arabic, ‫“ ﺍﻟﺼﺮ‬şir” commonly
signifies violent, cold wind. However, M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981) holds that ‫“ ﺍﻟﺼﺮ‬al-şir” refers to the wind
that might be extremely cold or hot. Indeed, the aspects of coldness and hotness are acceptable in
this context since such wind is destructive in nature as affirmed by the phrase ‫ َﻓَﺄْﻫﻠََﻜْﺘُﻪ‬fa’ahlakath
(caused it to perish). As M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 8, p. 212) argues, verse [13:117] represents a complex
simile in which the alms given by non-believers are likened to a perished harvest, and disbelief is
likened to a destructive wind. Historically, as shown in verse [41:16], God manipulates such an
intensely violent cold wind to punish the people of àād who lived in southern Arabia for challenging
God and disobeying His messenger, àād. The wind was so cold that it burned and shook everything
and everyone for eight days that are described in verse [41:16] as ‫ َﻧِﺤَﺴﺎٍﺕ‬naĥisāt (i.e., cold and sandy).
The same narrative of manipulating cold wind to punish the people of àād is reiterated in verses
[46:24], [51:41], [54:19], and [69:6], where rīĥ is described as “‫( ”ﺍْﻟَﻌِﻘﻴَﻢ‬sterile, neither causing rain nor
ِ
fertilizing plants), ‫( ِﻓﻴَﻬﺎ َﻋَﺬﺍٌﺏ ﺃَﻟِﻴٌﻢ‬wherein is a painful torment), ‫( ُﺗَﺪ ّﻣُﺮ ُﻛَّﻞ َﺷْﻲٍء‬destroying everything), ‫َﺗﻨﺰُﻉ‬
َ
‫( ﺍﻟﻨّﺎﺱ‬plucking up mankind), and ‫ﺻٍﺮ َﻋﺎِﺗﻴٍَﺔ‬ َ (furious and clamorous). Relatedly, verse [46:24] below
َ ‫ﺻْﺮ‬
offers the scene that preceded the punishment of the people of àād.
• [46:24] ‫ﺽ ُﻣْﻤِﻄُﺮَﻧﺎ َﺑْﻞ ُﻫَﻮ َﻣﺎ ﺍْﺳَﺘْﻌَﺠْﻠُﺘْﻢ ِﺑِﻪ ِﺭﻳٌﺢ ِﻓﻴَﻬﺎ َﻋَﺬﺍٌﺏ ﺃَﻟِﻴٌﻢ‬
ٌ ‫ﺿﺎ ُﻣْﺴَﺘْﻘِﺒَﻞ ﺃَْﻭِﺩَﻳِﺘِﻬْﻢ َﻗﺎﻟُﻮﺍ َﻫَﺬﺍ َﻋﺎِﺭ‬
ً ‫َﻓﻠََّﻤﺎ َﺭﺃَْﻭُﻩ َﻋﺎِﺭ‬
falammā ra’awhu `āriđāan mustaqbila ‘awdiyatihim qālū hādhā `āriđun mumţirunā bal huwa mā
asta`jaltum bihi rīĥun fīhā àdhābun ‘alīm
“Then, when they saw the [Penalty in the shape of] a cloud traversing the sky, coming to meet
their valleys, they said, “This cloud will give us rain!” “Nay, it is the [Calamity] ye were asking to be
hastened! A wind wherein is a Grievous Penalty!”
Historically speaking, narratives affirm that God’s punishment started with a drought that spread
throughout the land, but the people of àād became more obstinate. Some days later, the sky
became full of clouds. Initially, they thought that these clouds would cause rain; however,
a sudden, cold, violent wind blew and destroyed all aspects of life.
ِ ِ
• [14:18] ‫ﻒ‬ ِ ‫َﻣَﺜُﻞ ﺍﻟَِّﺬﻳَﻦ َﻛَﻔُﺮﻭﺍ ِﺑَﺮﺑِّﻬْﻢ ﺃَْﻋَﻤﺎﻟُُﻬْﻢ َﻛَﺮَﻣﺎٍﺩ ﺍْﺷَﺘَّﺪْﺕ ِﺑِﻪ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳُﺢ ِﻓﻲ َﻳْﻮٍﻡ َﻋﺎ‬
ٍ ‫ﺻ‬
mathalu al-ladhīna kafarū birabbihim a`māluhum karamādin ashtaddat bihi ar-rīĥu fī yawmin
`āşifin
“The parable of those who reject their Lord is that their works are as ashes, on which the wind
blows furiously on a tempestuous day”
The analogy in verse [14:18] is construed to stress the valuelessness and ineptitude of the deeds
of polytheists, as their deeds are likened to ashes (ramād) that the wind blows furiously on
a stormy day. This wind is described as ‫ﻒ‬ ِ ‫ َﻋﺎ‬ʿaṣif (tempestuous and intense). M. F. Ar-Rāzī
ٍ ‫ﺻ‬
(1981, Part 19, p. 109) argues that ʿaṣif may be either an attribute of the day or of the wind.
Similarly, verse [22:31] is grounded in a compound analogy, as polytheists are likened to those
who had fallen from the sky, been snatched up by birds, and been thrown away by the wind.
ِ
• [22:31] ‫َﻭَﻣْﻦ ُﻳْﺸِﺮْﻙ ِﺑﺎﻟﻠَِّﻪ َﻓَﻜﺄَﻧََّﻤﺎ َﺧَّﺮ ِﻣَﻦ ﺍﻟَّﺴَﻤﺎِﺀ َﻓَﺘْﺨَﻄُﻔُﻪ ﺍﻟَّﻄْﻴُﺮ ﺃَْﻭ َﺗْﻬِﻮﻱ ِﺑِﻪ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳُﺢ ِﻓﻲ َﻣَﻜﺎٍﻥ َﺳِﺤﻴٍﻖ‬
ĥunafā’a lillāh ghayra mushrikīna bihi wa man yushrik billāhi faka’annamā kharra mina as-samā’i
fatakhţafuhu aţ-ţayru ’aw tahwī bihi ar-rīĥu fī makānin saĥīq
“if anyone assigns partners to Allah, is as if he had fallen from heaven and been snatched up by
birds, or the wind had swooped [like a bird on its prey] and thrown him into a far-distant place.”
Page 11 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
Polytheists who have been cast into the valley of aberrance are compared to the wind, which
blows things around. Furthermore, ‘ibn `‘Ibn àshūr (1984, Part 17, p. 255) claims that the use of ‫ﺃَْﻭ‬
“aw’ (or) denotes two types of polytheists: those who oscillate between monotheism and polythe
ism (likened to someone who has collapsed from heaven and the birds snatch him away), and
those who insist on claiming partners to God (likened to someone who is swept down into a far-off
place). The second type is sentenced to severe punishment. Taking these aspects of punishment
into account, the negative connotations of rīĥ emerge once more.
Maintaining the same schema of punishment, sea winds are also schematized to punish, as
manifested in verse [17:69] below.
ِ
ِ ‫ﺃَْﻡ ﺃَِﻣْﻨُﺘْﻢ ﺃَْﻥ ُﻳِﻌﻴَﺪُﻛْﻢ ِﻓﻴِﻪ َﺗﺎَﺭًﺓ ﺃُْﺧَﺮﻯ َﻓُﻴْﺮِﺳَﻞ َﻋﻠَْﻴُﻜْﻢ َﻗﺎ‬
• [17:69] ‫ﺻًﻔﺎ ِﻣَﻦ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳِﺢ َﻓُﻴْﻐِﺮَﻗُﻜْﻢ ِﺑَﻤﺎ َﻛَﻔْﺮُﺗْﻢ‬
“am ”amintum ’an yu`īdakum fīhi tāratan ‘ukhrá fayursila àlaykum qāşifāan mina ar-rīĥi fayugh
riqakum bimā kafartum
“Or do ye feel secure that He will not send you back a second time to sea and send against you
a heavy gale to drown you because of your ingratitude”
In verse [17:69], people who show ingratitude to God are destined to be punished by a rumbling
sea wind (‫ﺻﻒ‬ ِ ‫ َﻗﺎ‬qāṣif) that is made to break their ships and cause them to be drawn. Furthermore,
verse [30:51] below replicates the same idea of ingratitude, as ungrateful people count only on
God’s blessings.
• [30:51] ‫ﺼَﻔًّﺮﺍ ﻟََﻈﻠُّﻮﺍ ِﻣْﻦ َﺑْﻌِﺪِﻩ َﻳْﻜُﻔُﺮﻭَﻥ‬

ْ ‫َﻭﻟَِﺌْﻦ ﺃَْﺭَﺳْﻠَﻨﺎ ِﺭﻳًﺤﺎ َﻓَﺮﺃَْﻭُﻩ ُﻣ‬
wa la’in ‘arsalnā rīĥāan fara’awhu muşfarrāan lažallū min ba`dihi yakfurūn
“And if We [but] send a Wind from which they see [their tilth] turn yellow, behold, they become,
thereafter, Ungrateful [Unbelievers]!”
That is, if an ungrateful person’s faith is tested by sending them a wind that turns plants yellow
(muṣffar), they would be an unbeliever. The attached pronoun in ‫ َﺭﺃَْﻭُﻩ‬raʾawhu (they see it) refers to
“green plants” that turn yellow as a result of sending hot or cold wind and holding rain. Contrarily,
the Qur’anic text motivates positive connotations for rīĥ in the sense of moving air. Such positive
connotations are related to Solomon, and they can be traced in verses [21:81], [33:9], [34:12],
[38:36], and [42:33] below.
َْ ِ
• [21:81] ‫ﺽ ﺍﻟَِّﺘﻲ َﺑﺎَﺭْﻛَﻨﺎ ِﻓﻴَﻬﺎ‬ َ
ِ ‫ﺻَﻔًﺔ َﺗْﺠِﺮﻱ ِﺑﺄْﻣِﺮِﻩ ﺇِﻟَﻰ ﺍﻷْﺭ‬
ِ ‫َﻭﻟُِﺴﻠَْﻴَﻤﺎَﻥ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳَﺢ َﻋﺎ‬
wa lisulaymāna ar-rīĥa `āşifatan tajrī bi’amrihi ’ilá al-’arđi allatī bāraknā fīhā
“[It was Our power that made] the violent [unruly] wind flow [tamely] for Solomon, to his order,
to the land which We had blessed”
ِ
• [34:12] ‫َﻭﻟُِﺴﻠَْﻴَﻤﺎَﻥ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳَﺢ ُﻏُﺪُّﻭَﻫﺎ َﺷْﻬٌﺮ َﻭَﺭَﻭﺍُﺣَﻬﺎ َﺷْﻬٌﺮ‬
wa lisulaymāna ar-rīĥa ghudūwuhā shahrun wa rawāĥuhā shahr
“And to Solomon [We made] the Wind [obedient]: Its early morning [stride] was a month’s
[journey], and its evening [stride] was a month’s [journey]”
ِ
َ َ‫َﻓَﺴَّﺨْﺮَﻧﺎ ﻟَُﻪ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳَﺢ َﺗْﺠِﺮﻱ ِﺑﺄَْﻣِﺮِﻩ ُﺭَﺧﺎًﺀ َﺣْﻴُﺚ ﺃ‬
• [38:36] ‫ﺻﺎَﺏ‬
Page 12 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
fasakhkharnā lahu ar-rīĥa tajrī bi’amrihi rukhā’an ĥaythu ‘aşāb
“Then We subjected the wind to his power, to flow gently to his order, whithersoever he willed”
The Qur’anic text recounts that God made different creatures subservient to Solomon, including the
wind. This wind is described as ‫ﺻَﻔًﺔ‬ ِ ‫ َﻋﺎ‬ʿāsifatan (tempestuous or stormy) in verse [21:81], ‫ َﺗْﺠِﺮﻱ ِﺑَﺄْﻣِﺮِﻩ‬taǧrī
bi-ʾamrihi (run at his command) in verses [21:81] and [38:36], ‫ ُﺭَﺧﺎًﺀ‬ruḫāʾan (gently) in verse [38:36],
‫ ُﻏُﺪُّﻭَﻫﺎ َﺷْﻬٌﺮ‬ġudauwuhā šahr (its course in the early morning was a month’s journey) and ‫َﺭَﻭﺍُﺣَﻬﺎ َﺷْﻬﺮ‬
rawāḥuhā šahr (its course home in the late afternoon was a month’s journey) in verse [34:12].
Commenting on the description of such a wind as ‫ﺻَﻔًﺔ‬ ِ ‫ َﻋﺎ‬ʿāsifatan which literally means “tempestu
ous”, M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 22, p. 201) holds that the wind was inherently violent, but after God
made it subservient to Solomon, it became gentle. However, in terms of the Islamic historical context
underlying Solomon’s power as a king, such a wind was powerful rather than violent. The sense of
powerfulness is much more appealing in this context, as it helped Solomon to move very quickly from
Palestine to different regions all over the globe, carrying him, his soldiers, war equipment, goods, etc.
In principle, Solomon’s wind was a miracle that worked to demonstrate his prophecy.
Positive connotations are also invoked in verses [42:33] and [33:9] below, where rīĥ is repre
sented as one of God’s graces.
ِ
• [42:33] ‫ﺇِْﻥ َﻳَﺸْﺄ ُﻳْﺴِﻜِﻦ ﺍﻟ ّﺮﻳَﺢ َﻓَﻴْﻈﻠَْﻠَﻦ َﺭَﻭﺍِﻛَﺪ َﻋﻠَﻰ َﻇْﻬِﺮِﻩ‬
“in yasha” yuskini ar-rīĥa fayažlalna rawākida àlá žahrihi
“If it be His Will He can still the Wind: then would they become motionless on the back of the
[ocean].”
• [33:9] ‫َﻳﺎ ﺃَُّﻳَﻬﺎ ﺍﻟَِّﺬﻳَﻦ ﺁََﻣُﻨﻮﺍ ﺍْﺫُﻛُﺮﻭﺍ ِﻧْﻌَﻤَﺔ ﺍﻟﻠَِّﻪ َﻋﻠَْﻴُﻜْﻢ ﺇِْﺫ َﺟﺎَﺀْﺗُﻜْﻢ ُﺟُﻨﻮٌﺩ َﻓﺄَْﺭَﺳْﻠَﻨﺎ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻬْﻢ ِﺭﻳًﺤﺎ َﻭُﺟُﻨﻮًﺩﺍ ﻟَْﻢ َﺗَﺮْﻭَﻫﺎ‬
yā ’ayyuhā al-ladhīna “āmanū adhkurū ni`mata allāhiàlaykum ”idh jā’atkum junūdun fa’arsalnā
àlayhim rīĥāan wa junūdāan lam tarawhā
“O ye who believe! Remember the Grace of Allah, [bestowed] on you, when there came down on
you hosts [to overwhelm you]: But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not.”
Though winds are designed to move ships, God warns ungrateful people who deny His existence
that He might quiet such a wind; and therefore, they linger motionless. Similarly, in verse [33:9],
winds are represented as divine messengers to support believers. God reminds believers that He
supported them with a cold wind known as Aş-şabā during Ghazwat Al-’aĥzāb (the Battle of the
Trench) in 5 AH. Such a powerful wind took away the camp of the Jewish clans in Mecca. Likewise,
verse [10:22] offers another intriguing schema of rīĥ as it is manipulated to mark God’s power to
designate the wind as bliss or torment. Therefore, both positive and negative connotations are
invoked, respectively.
ِ ِ ِ
ِ ‫ُﻫَﻮ ﺍﻟَِّﺬﻱ ُﻳَﺴﻴُّﺮُﻛْﻢ ِﻓﻲ ﺍْﻟَﺒ ّﺮ َﻭﺍْﻟَﺒْﺤِﺮ َﺣَّﺘﻰ ﺇَِﺫﺍ ُﻛْﻨُﺘْﻢ ِﻓﻲ ﺍْﻟُﻔْﻠِﻚ َﻭَﺟَﺮْﻳَﻦ ِﺑِﻬْﻢ ِﺑِﺮﻳٍﺢ َﻃﻴَّﺒٍﺔ َﻭَﻓِﺮُﺣﻮﺍ ِﺑَﻬﺎ َﺟﺎَﺀْﺗَﻬﺎ ِﺭﻳٌﺢ َﻋﺎ‬
ٌ ‫ﺻ‬
• [10:22] ‫ﻒ‬
huwa al-ladhī yusayyirukum fī al-barri wa al-baĥri ĥattá ’idhā kuntum fī al-fulki wa jarayna bihim
birīĥin ţayyibatin wa fariĥū bihā jā’at/hā rīĥun `āşifun
“He it is Who enableth you to traverse through land and sea; so that ye even board ships;- they
sail with them with a favourable wind, and they rejoice thereat; then comes a stormy wind”
The setting of verse [10:22] is a ship where disbelievers firstly rejoiced as a good wind (rīĥun
ţayyiba) blew. Suddenly came a tempestuous wind (rīĥun `āşif) and waves from all sides to remind
Page 13 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
them of their ungratefulness to God’s blessings. The deictic shift from the second person pronoun
ِ
in ‫‘ ُﻳَﺴﻴُّﺮُﻛْﻢ‬yusayyirukum (makes you to travel) and ‫ ‘ ُﻛْﻨُﺘْﻢ‬kuntum (you were) to the third person
pronoun in ‫ ﺟَﺮْﻳَﻦ ِﺑِﻬْﻢ‬jarayna bihim (run with them) and ‫ َﻓِﺮُﺣﻮﺍ ِﺑَﻬﺎ‬fariĥū bihā (they exult with it) marks
a shift from addressing both believers and disbelievers and reminding them of God’s blessings to
addressing ungrateful disbelievers.
Furthermore, rīĥ is used to denote predominance to warn believers not to dispute lest their
power be taken away. In other words, as far as the sense of predominance is concerned, rīĥ
foregrounds loss of power. Consider verse [8:46] below.
• [8:46] ‫َﻭﺃَِﻃﻴُﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠََّﻪ َﻭَﺭُﺳﻮﻟَُﻪ َﻭَﻻ َﺗَﻨﺎَﺯُﻋﻮﺍ َﻓَﺘْﻔَﺸﻠُﻮﺍ َﻭَﺗْﺬَﻫَﺐ ِﺭﻳُﺤُﻜْﻢ‬
wa ‘aţī`ū allaha wa rasūlahu wa lā tanāza`ū fatafshalū wa tadhhaba rīĥukum
“And obey Allah and His Messenger; and fall into no disputes, lest ye lose heart and your power
depart”
In verse [8:46], God advises believers to obey Him and not fall into disputes; otherwise, their
predominance would depart (tadhhaba rīĥukum). Here, a new cognitive frame is offered, that of
a powerful state. A true powerful state is established on strict policies to maintain unity and
obedience to God and His messenger. However, Al-Qurtubī (2006, Part 10, pp. 40–41) accepts the
literal meaning of wind. He mentions that this wind is known as Aş-şabā, and that it was made to
support Mohammed and his followers against the Jews. Al-Qurtubī’s claim might be based on
other intertextual information retrieved from the Prophetic Hadith: “nuşirtu bi-aş-şabā wa-
’uhlikatàādun bi-ad-dabūr” [I was granted victory with Aş-şabā and the people of àād were
destroyed by Ad-dabūr]. However, M. F. Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 15, p. 177) goes for the sense of
predominance, as disputes among believers could not affect the blowing of the wind. However,
I maintain that metaphorizing a powerful state as a powerful wind stresses the idea of predomi
nance, and therefore it could be concluded that the frame of natural force is conceptually blended
with the frame of a powerful state. Just as a gentle wind could be beneficial in different ways,
a powerful state is beneficial to its people. Also, just as a massively powerful wind is destructive,
disputes are destructive.
Finally, rīĥ appears only once in the sense of smell, in verse [12:94], to indicate the conclusion of
the prophet Joseph and his brothers’ story.
ِ
َ ‫ﺼﻠَِﺖ ﺍْﻟِﻌﻴُﺮ َﻗﺎَﻝ ﺃَُﺑﻮُﻫْﻢ ﺇِﻧّﻲ َﻷِﺟُﺪ ِﺭﻳَﺢ ُﻳﻮُﺳ‬
• [12:94] ‫ﻒ‬ َ ‫َﻭﻟََّﻤﺎ َﻓ‬
wa lammā faşalati al-`īru qāla “abūhum ”innī la’ajidu rīĥa yūsufa
“When the caravan left [Egypt], their father said: “I do indeed scent the presence of Joseph”
Verse [12:94] recounts a euphoric episode in Joseph’s narrative. Prophet Jacob, Joseph’s father,
lost Joseph for twenty-two years, and all people, except Jacob, thought that Joseph was eaten by
a wolf. Jacob told his family that he indeed smelt the presence of Joseph, and therefore he
cheered up. Al-Qurtubī (2006, Part 11, p. 447) and Ar-Rāzī (1981, Part 18, p. 212) argue that
such a smell represents a miracle, as a real wind carried Joseph’s smell to Jacob from Egypt to
Canaan (the Levant). Contrarily, ‘ibn `‘Ibn àshūr (1984, Part 13, p. 52) argues against the idea of
a real wind, and he regards such a smell as a kind of extraordinary inspiration from God to Jacob.
Either interpretation is favored, the positive connotation of rīĥ in this context is emphasized, as rīĥ
is schematized as a herald of glad tidings represented by an expected familial reunion. From
a cognitive perspective, there is a transfer between two cognitive frames: wind as a natural force
and smell as a meronym of Joseph. Such a wind and Joseph are conceptually blended, and this
blend is supported by Jacob’s assertive tone in the verse.
Page 14 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
Table 3. The referential range of rīĥ

Lexical item Lexical relation Referential Cognitive frame Connotations
range
rīĥ polysemous moving air Wind as a natural Positive, negative
force and neutral
power and Powerful state
predominance
smell Herald of good
tidings
(Familial reunion)
Table 3 below summarizes the referential range of rīĥ and the cognitive frames underlying them.
Having fully analyzed and instantiated the referential range of rīĥ, the next section analyses the
referential range of riyāĥ in the Qur’anic text.
5.2. Riyāĥ
Throughout the Qur’anic text, the lexeme riyāĥ is repeated ten times to signify moving air.
Therefore, the cognitive frame of wind as a natural force is claimed to underlie all the verses
containing the lexeme riyāĥ. Riyāĥ is used with two main verbs, “‫ ”ُﻳْﺮِﺳُﻞ‬yursil (send) and “‫ ”َﺗْﺬﺭﻯ‬taḏri
(winnow). If decontextualized, both verbs tend to have neutral connotations. While the verb
“yursil” signifies the processes of wind creation, direction, and adjustment, the verb tadhri (win
now) signifies one of the common actions of winds as they scatter things around. Other contextual
clues in the verses under exploration could help to figure out the connotations associated with
riyāĥ.
In verses [2:164] and [45:5] below, riyāĥ is associated with ‫ َﻣﺎٍﺀ‬mā’ (rain) and ‫ َّﺳَﺤﺎﺏ‬as-saĥāb
(clouds) that carry rain to give life to the dead land.
ِ ِّ َ
• [2:164] ‫ﻒ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎِﺡ َﻭﺍﻟَّﺴَﺤﺎِﺏ ﺍﻟُْﻤَﺴَّﺨِﺮ َﺑْﻴَﻦ‬
ِ ‫ﺼِﺮﻳ‬ َ ‫َﻭَﻣﺎ ﺃَْﻧَﺰَﻝ ﺍﻟﻠَُّﻪ ِﻣَﻦ ﺍﻟَّﺴَﻤﺎِﺀ ِﻣْﻦ َﻣﺎٍﺀ َﻓﺄَْﺣَﻴﺎ ِﺑِﻪ ﺍْﻷْﺭ‬
ْ ‫ﺽ َﺑْﻌَﺪ َﻣْﻮِﺗَﻬﺎ َﻭﺑََّﺚ ِﻓﻴَﻬﺎ ِﻣْﻦ ُﻛﻞ َﺩﺍَّﺑٍﺔ َﻭَﺗ‬
ُ َ َ َْ
ِ ‫ﺍﻟَّﺴَﻤﺎِﺀ َﻭﺍﻷْﺭ‬
‫ﺽ ﻵَﻳﺎٍﺕ ﻟِﻘْﻮٍﻡ َﻳْﻌِﻘﻠﻮَﻥ‬
wa mā ’anzala allāhu mina as-samā’i min mā’in fa’aĥyā bihi al-’arđa ba`da mawtihā wa baththa
fīhā min kulli dābbatin wa taşrīfi ar-riyāĥi wa as-saĥābi al-musakhkhari bayna as-samā’i wa al-
’arđi la’āyātin liqawmin ya`qilūn
In the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an
earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the
winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth; [Here]
indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.”
ِ َ
• [45:5] ‫ﻒ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎِﺡ ﺁََﻳﺎٌﺕ ﻟَِﻘْﻮٍﻡ َﻳْﻌِﻘﻠُﻮَﻥ‬ َ ‫ﻑ ﺍﻟﻠَّْﻴِﻞ َﻭﺍﻟﻨََّﻬﺎِﺭ َﻭَﻣﺎ ﺃَْﻧَﺰَﻝ ﺍﻟﻠَُّﻪ ِﻣَﻦ ﺍﻟَّﺴَﻤﺎِﺀ ِﻣْﻦ ِﺭْﺯٍﻕ َﻓﺄَْﺣَﻴﺎ ِﺑِﻪ ﺍْﻷْﺭ‬
ْ َ‫ﺽ َﺑْﻌَﺪ َﻣْﻮِﺗَﻬﺎ َﻭﺗ‬
ِ ‫ﺼِﺮﻳ‬ ِ ‫َﻭﺍْﺧِﺘَﻼ‬
wa akhtilāfi al-layli wa an-nahāri wa mā ’anzala allāhu mina as-samā’i min rizqin fa’aĥyā bihi al-
’arđa ba`da mawtihā wa taşrīfi ar-riyāĥi ‘āyātun liqawmin ya`qilūn
“And in the alternation of Night and Day, and the fact that Allah sends down Sustenance from
the sky, and revives therewith the earth after its death, and in the change of the winds, are Signs
for those that are wise.”
Both verses above emphasize the role riyāĥ plays in the process of rain formation and land
nourishment. Further, in the same verses, God reminds people of the signs of His power, including
the change of winds (taşrīfi ar-riyāĥ). The verbiage of the two verses above captures the notion
Page 15 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
that God changes winds to suit different circumstances as a sign of His existence and power. Al-
Qurtubī (2006, Part 2, pp. 498–502) holds that ‘‫ﻒ‬ ْ ‫ ”َﺗ‬taşrīf (change) may refer to three possible
ِ ‫ﺼِﺮﻳ‬
meanings. First, wind may blow in different forms and states, viz., winds may be impregnating,
devastating, supportive, hot, cold, gentle, or violent. Second, winds blow from different regions
with different features. Therefore, different names for winds abound, such as “Aş-şabā” (hot and
dry), “Ad-dabūr” (cold and humid), “Ash-shamāl” (cold and dry), “Al-janūb” (hot and humid), and
‘An-nakbaā” (a wind that blows between two winds). Third, winds are made to blow in a way that
suits both huge and small ships. Taking these meanings into consideration, it could be claimed that
if the schema of changing winds is invoked, neutral connotations are manifested.
Maintaining the same positive connotations of riyāĥ, in verses [7:57], [25:48], [27:63] and [30:46]
ِ
below, riyāĥ is described as ‫ ُﺑْﺸًﺮﺍ‬bushrāan (heralding glad tidings), ‫ ُﻣَﺒ ّﺸَﺮﺍٍﺕ‬mubashshirāt (heralds of
glad tidings), and‫ َﺭْﺣَﻤﻪ‬raĥma (mercy).
ِ
• [7:57] ‫َﻭُﻫَﻮ ﺍﻟَِّﺬﻱ ُﻳْﺮِﺳُﻞ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎَﺡ ُﺑْﺸًﺮﺍ َﺑْﻴَﻦ َﻳَﺪْﻱ َﺭْﺣَﻤِﺘِﻪ‬
Wa huwa al-ladhī yursilu ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday raĥmatihi
“It is He Who sendeth the winds like heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy”
ِ
[25:48] ‫َﻭُﻫَﻮ ﺍﻟَِّﺬﻱ ﺃَْﺭَﺳَﻞ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎَﺡ ُﺑْﺸًﺮﺍ َﺑْﻴَﻦ َﻳَﺪْﻱ َﺭْﺣَﻤِﺘِﻪ‬
wa huwa al-ladhī ’arsala ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday raĥmatihi
“And He it is Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy”
ِ ِ
• [27:63]‫ﺃََّﻣْﻦ َﻳْﻬِﺪﻳُﻜْﻢ ِﻓﻲ ُﻇﻠَُﻤﺎِﺕ ﺍْﻟﺒَ ّﺮ َﻭﺍْﻟَﺒْﺤِﺮ َﻭَﻣْﻦ ُﻳْﺮِﺳُﻞ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎَﺡ ُﺑْﺸًﺮﺍ َﺑْﻴَﻦ َﻳَﺪْﻱ َﺭْﺣَﻤِﺘِﻪ‬
‘amman yahdīkum fī žulumāti al-barri wa al-baĥri wa man yursilu ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday
raĥmatihi
“Or, Who guides you through the depths of darkness on land and sea, and Who sends the winds
as heralds of glad tidings, going before His Mercy?”
ِ ِ
• [30:46] ‫َﻭِﻣْﻦ ﺁََﻳﺎِﺗِﻪ ﺃَْﻥ ُﻳْﺮِﺳَﻞ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎَﺡ ُﻣَﺒ ّﺸَﺮﺍٍﺕ َﻭﻟُِﻴِﺬﻳَﻘُﻜْﻢ ِﻣْﻦ َﺭْﺣَﻤﺘِِﻪ‬
Wa min “āyātihi ”an yursila ar-riyāĥa mubashshirātin wa liyudhīqakum min raĥmatihi
“Among His Signs is this, that He sends the Winds, as heralds of Glad Tidings, giving you a taste
of His [Grace and] Mercy”
As far as the modifier “‫( ”ُﺑْﺸًﺮﺍ‬bushrāan) is considered, it could be argued that such winds are
metaphorized as messengers sent with glad tidings. Furthermore, the same idea of changing
winds to produce rain that gives birth to the dead land is repeated in verse [35:9]. Similarly,
verse [30:48] offers a detailed description of the process of rain formation that originally starts
with creating winds. God sends winds that raise clouds, and then He spreads these clouds in the
sky. As God breaks the clouds into fragments, rain starts to fall. In addition to causing rain, winds
help to sail ships, as manifested in verse [30:46]. Taking all these descriptions into account, riyāĥ is
is seen as an integral part of a larger metaphor that compares the resurrection of the dead on the
Day of judgment to giving birth to a dead land by causing rain to fall on it. Keeping the same
ecolinguistic context, verses [15:22] and [18:45] below associate riyāĥ with plants in two distinct
contexts.
ِ
• [15:22] ‫َﻭﺃَْﺭَﺳْﻠَﻨﺎ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎَﺡ ﻟََﻮﺍِﻗَﺢ َﻓﺄَْﻧَﺰْﻟَﻨﺎ ِﻣَﻦ ﺍﻟَّﺴَﻤﺎِﺀ َﻣﺎًﺀ َﻓﺄَْﺳَﻘْﻴَﻨﺎُﻛُﻤﻮُﻩ َﻭَﻣﺎ ﺃَْﻧُﺘْﻢ ﻟَُﻪ ِﺑَﺨﺎِﺯِﻧﻴَﻦ‬
Page 16 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
Table 4. The referential range of riyāĥ

Lexical item Lexical relation Referential Cognitive frame Connotations
range
riyāḥ monosemic moving air wind as a natural Positive, negative
force and neutral
wa “arsalnā ar-riyāĥa lawāqiĥa fa’anzalnā mina as-samā’i mā’an fa’asqaynākumūhu wa mā

”antum lahu bikhāzinīn
“And We send the fecundating winds, then cause the rain to descend from the sky, therewith
providing you with water [in abundance]”
ِ َْ
ْ ‫ﺽ َﻓَﺄ‬
• [18:45] ‫ﺻَﺒَﺢ َﻫِﺸﻴًﻤﺎ َﺗْﺬُﺭﻭُﻩ ﺍﻟ ّﺮَﻳﺎُﺡ‬ َ ُ
ِ ‫ﺿِﺮْﺏ ﻟَُﻬْﻢ َﻣَﺜَﻞ ﺍْﻟَﺤَﻴﺎِﺓ ﺍﻟّﺪْﻧَﻴﺎ َﻛَﻤﺎٍﺀ ﺃْﻧَﺰْﻟَﻨﺎُﻩ ِﻣَﻦ ﺍﻟَّﺴَﻤﺎِﺀ َﻓﺎْﺧَﺘﻠََﻂ ِﺑِﻪ َﻧَﺒﺎُﺕ ﺍﻷْﺭ‬
ْ ‫َﻭﺍ‬
wa ađrib lahum mathala al-ĥayāati ad-dunyā kamā’in “anzalnāhu mina as-samā’i fākhtalaţa bihi
nabātu al-”arđi fa’aşbaĥa hashīmāan tadhrūhu ar-riyāĥu
“Set forth to them the similitude of the life of this world: It is like the rain which we send down
from the skies: the earth’s vegetation absorbs it, but soon it becomes dry stubble, which the winds
do scatter”
The context of verse [15:22] ascribes a positive connotation to riyāĥ as winds are described as
‫ ﻟََﻮﺍِﻗَﺢ‬lawāqiĥ (impregnating), i.e., carriers of benefits. That is, such winds, blowing from the south
and known as Ad-dabūr, carry water, dust, clouds, pollen, and other benefits. Moreover, impreg
nating winds fertilize plants and inject clouds with water vapor to form rain. In this regard, ‘ibn
`‘Ibn àshūr (1984, Part 14, p. 37) holds that winds in verse [15:22] are metaphorized as pregnant
she-camels that are also referred to in Classical Arabic as ‫ ﻟََﻮﺍِﻗَﺢ‬lawāqiĥ. Wind fertilizes plants and
clouds in the same way that camels fertilize she-camels. In verse [18:45], on the other hand, riyāĥ
is used as part of a metaphor in which life is compared to the rain that God sends to earth, causing
plants to grow; however, these plants soon become chaff that winds winnow. Like plants, wealth
and power are not permanent. The context thus ascribes both positive and negative connotations
to riyāĥ in the same verse. That is, winds that create rain and help with the growth of plants could
be a disgrace as they cause plants to get dry and finally winnow. Table 4 summarizes the
referential range of riyāĥ.
Based on the analysis of the referential range of rīĥ and riyāĥ, it can be concluded that the plural
form riyāĥ is used in verses associated with divine mercy and profit, while the singular form rīĥ is
used in verses associated with divine penalty and punishment. That is, riyāĥ signifies different
winds that gently blow every day and night to refresh the air, form clouds, fertilize plants, and sail
ships. Meanwhile, rīĥ is often presented as blowing across long periods of time to perform specific,
mostly punitive, missions.
6. Discussion
The present study applied a mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) descriptive/cognitive
semantic approach to analyze twenty-eight verses where the lexical pair rīĥ and riyāĥ are used.
Such a lexical pair has been selected as a representative of the etymologically-related Qur’anic
lexical pairs that are markedly frequent, and whose referential range is considerably varied. Rīĥ
and riyāĥ are textually represented as tokens of the same type as they are derived from the
tripartite verb “‫ ”َﺭَﻭَﺡ‬r-w-ĥ (pronounced rawaĥa(. In what follows, we offer empirical answers to the
research questions raised in this study.
Page 17 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
The study’s first question concerns the analysis of the referential range of the lexical pair rīĥ and
riyāĥ. Findings showed that the singular form rīĥ has been proven to be polysemous as it denotes
three senses (or lexical units): (1) moving air, (2) power/predominance, and (3) smell, while the
plural form riyāĥ is monosemic as it only marks different states of moving air. Based on normal
ontological assumptions and the high frequency of using rīĥ to mark the conceptual schema of
moving air (or wind), it could be concluded that the conceptual schema of rīĥ as a nature force
represents the core node or the central reference point from which the senses of predominance
and smell developed. Though such senses are identified, their underlying contexts fettered Qur’an
interpreters, and various exegeses are offered due to the elastic scope of rīĥ.
The study’s second and third questions concern the role of co(n)text in marking the connotations
associated with the referential range of the lexical pair, as well as the discourse functions commu
nicated through the cognitive frames evoked by such a lexical pair. In this regard, the present study
correlates with Cruse’s (2000) argument that words’ senses are sensitive to the environment where
they are used. Though rīĥ and riyāĥ are contextually distinct, their senses merge via metaphorical
extension. Furthermore, both lexemes are manipulated to mark both a process sense and a product
sense. That is, in some contexts, the process of creating, initiating, and sending good and evil winds
is focalized. Conversely, in some other contexts, the impact of winds is much stressed. Therefore,
they are perceived as independent lexical items that cannot be used interchangeably in all contexts.
This finding is consistent with both Goddard’s (1998) and Goddard and Wierzbicka’s (2016) conten
tion that the validity of the multiple meanings of a lexical item could be tested by substitution.
Further, the effective role played by context in the interpretation of the lexical pairs under
investigation accentuates the semantic connection between words and their combinations,
which goes in conformity with Norén and Linell’s (2007) theory of “meaning potentials,” which is
used to describe “the connection between word meaning and context” (p. 389), argues for the
assumption that lexical items and expressions are used in combination with contextual properties
of texts to communicate the situated meanings of language users. This harmoniously semantic
correlation between lexical items and contextual factors is also similar in nature to Gibson’s (1979,
as cited in Norén & Linell, 2007, p. 389) “semantic affordance” theory, which also proposes that
lexical units provide language users with affordances of meanings.
The cognitive frame of wind as a natural force is divinely manipulated in the Qur’anic text to spot
a set of scenarios, based on actual historical events or similitudes, signifying positive, negative, and
neutral connotations. All positive, negative, and neutral connotations of the lexical pair in question are
identifiable by virtue of its lexical environment (in the form of a group of related predicates, mainly
verbs, adjectives, and nouns) as well as by virtue of its underlying historical and theological contexts.
On the one hand, rīĥ demonstrated the ability to conjure divinely bestowed graces (as in the case of
Solomon’s wind), herald a familial reunion (as in the case of Jacob and Joseph), punish disbelievers,
polytheists, and ungrateful people, warn against clash and disunity, and support believers.
In the case of rīĥ, given the metaphorically extended senses of predominance and smell, it has
been proven that there is a transfer between two cognitive frames. In verse [8:46], the transfer
holds between the cognitive frame of wind (as a natural force) and the cognitive frame of powerful
states. The way to keep such power is to unite and obey God and His messenger. In verse [12: 94],
given the context of Joseph and his brothers, the transfer holds between the cognitive frame of
wind (as a natural force) and the frame of smell. Indeed, the three conceptual frames of natural
force, powerful state, and smell have been proven to be conceptually coherent as they intrinsically
complement the prototypical sense of moving air.
Likewise, riyāĥ has been proven to have positive, negative, and neutral connotations, marking
several graces bestowed by God on the universe, including the formation of clouds, causing rain,
sailing ships, fertilizing plants, expelling insects, moderating temperature, etc. (positive), assuming
the role of a divine warning to disbelievers regarding the ephemerality of power (negative), and
Page 18 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
representing winds of varying strength, blowing from different regions (neutral). Overall, despite
the various schemas that riyāĥ motivated in the Qur’anic text, it could only be perceived as
a natural force within the cognitive frame of wind.
Based on this discussion, we argue that clarifying the referential range of etymologically related
polysemous in a systematic way, taking into consideration the cognitive frame(s) underlying their
usage in the Qur’anic counterargues against the untranslatability of polysemous lexemes (cf.,
Alhaj, 2015; Ali et al., 2014).
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study offered empirical evidence that etymologically-related lexemes in the
Qur’anic text have the potential to generate distinct referential ranges as far as their historical
and theological contexts are considered. A word form in the Qur’anic text could evolve into
a polysemy network, with one sense serving as the core node and other senses emerging
through metaphorical extension. Each sense represents an independent cognitive frame
through which the whole meaning of a verse is communicated. Moreover, even if etymologi
cally related lexemes share one aspect of meaning, they could develop different connotations,
each of which is manipulated to perform a particular discourse function. Based on the findings
of the present study, further revealing studies are required to offer more in-depth analysis into
the grammatical-based typology and discourse functions of etymologically related lexemes in
the language of the Qur’an and in other genres in Arabic and English. Complementarily, future
studies are recommended to apply a corpus-driven approach to the study of etymologically
related lexemes in variant texts (e.g., classical Arabic poetry) in order to identify prospective
registerial differences in their usage and functions.
Acknowledgements References
This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam bin Abdul-Ghafour, A. K. M., Mat Awal, N., Zainudin, I. S., &
Abdulaziz University, project number (PSAU/2023/R/1444) Aladdin, A. (2019). The interplay of Qur’ānic syno
nymy and polysemy with special reference to al-
Funding asfār and al-kutub (the books) and their English
The authors received no direct funding for this research. translations. 3L the Southeast Asian Journal of
English Language Studies, 25(1), 129–143. https://doi.
Author details org/10.17576/3l-2019-2501-10
Waheed M. A. Altohami1,2 Al-àwā, S. M. (1998). Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-
E-mail: w.m.altohami@gmail.com Qur’aān al-karīm (1st) ed.). The Sense and Referents
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8742-1366 in the Glorious Qur’an.
Ayman Khafaga1,3 Al-Damaghaānī, A. M. (1983). Qāmūs Al-Qur’aān ‘aw ‘iṣlāĥ
1
Department of English, College of Sciences and al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-Qur’aān al-karīm (The
Humanities in Al-Kharj, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz Dictionary of the Qur’an or Adjustment of Senses and
University, Saudi Arabia. Referents in the Glorious Qur’an). Dār Al-’ilm li-Al-
2
Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Education, Malāyīn.
Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt. Alhaj, A. A. (2015). A study of polysemous words in Qur’an
3
Department of English, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, translation: A textbook for students of linguistics and
Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. translation. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
Ali, A. Y. (1983/1934). The holy Qur’an: Text, translation,
Citation information and commentary. Amana Corp.
Cite this article as: Exploring the referential range of ety Ali, A., Brakhw, M. A., & Nordin, M. Z. F. (2014).
mologically-related lexical pairs in the language of the Transferring POLYSEMIC words from Arabic into eng
Qur’an: A cognitive-semantic approach, Waheed M. A. lish: A comparative study of some samples from the
Altohami & Ayman Khafaga, Cogent Arts & Humanities Holy Quran. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
(2023), 10: 2185969. Sciences, 8(23), 38–43.
Allan, K. (2001). Natural Language Semantics. Blackwell.
Note Allan, K. (2014). Referring to ‘what counts as the referent’:
1. Chapters and verses are notationally represented A view from linguistics. In A. Capone, F. Piparo, &
between two square brackets. For instance, [2:42] M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and
refers to verse number [42] in sūrat Al-Baqarah (the philosophy (pp. 263–284). Springer Verlag.
Cow) whose order in the Qur’an is number [2]. Al-Qaāri’, H. M. 1988. Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-
Qur’aān al-karīm (The Sense and Referents in the
Disclosure statement Glorious Qur’an). Dār Şadām li-Al-Makhṭūţāţ
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the Al-Qaràāwī, S. Ṣ. (1999). Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al-
author(s). Qur’aān al-karīm – Dirāsah wa-muwāzanah (The
Page 19 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
senses and referents in the Glorious Qur’an – A study Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 313–340).
and a comparison). Maktabat Al-Rushd li-Al-Nashr Oxford University Press.
wa-Al-Tawzī`. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual
Al-Qurtubī, ʾ. A. M. (2006). Al-jaāmi` li-’aĥkaām Al-Qur’aān perception. Houghton Mifflin.
(The Complete Judgments of the Quran). Mu’asasat Goddard, C. (1998). Semantic analysis: A practical intro
Al-Risālah. duction. Oxford University Press.
Al-Siyūtī, G. (2008). Al-’itqān fi ùlūm Al-Qur’aān (The Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2016). Words and mean
Prefect Guide to the Sciences of the Quran). Mu’asasat ings. Lexical semantics across domains, languages
Al-Risaālah. and cultures. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/
Al-Thaàālibī, A. 1932. Al-’ashbaāh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi al- 10.4000/lexis.3514
’alfāẓ Al-Qur’aānīyah allaty tarādafat mabaānīhā wa- Hogeweg, L. (2019). Suppression in interpreting adjective
tanawaàt maàānīhā (The Senses and Referents of noun combinations and the nature of the lexicon.
Qur’anic Lexemes with Similar Forms and Variant Journal of Semantics, 36(4), 721–751. https://doi.org/
Meanings). ālam Al-Kutub li-Al-Ṭibaāàh wa-Al-Nashr 10.1093/jos/ffz012
wa-Al-Tawzī` ‘Ibn Al-’imād, M. M. (2004). Kashf As-saraā’ir fi ma`na al-
Al-Zamakhsharī, A. J. (2009). Tafsīr al-kashāf - àn ĥaqā’iq wujuūh wa-al-’ashbāh wa-an- nažaā’ir (Disclosing the
at-tanzīl wa-ùyūn al-’aqaāwīl fi wujuūh at-ta’wīl. The secrets of the meaning of senses and referents). Al-
Interpretation of the Investigator – On the Facts of Maktabah Al-Maṣrīyah li-Al-Ṭibaāàh wa-Al-Nashr wa-
Revelation, Commentaries in the Facets of Al-Tawzī`.
Interpretation. Dār Al-Ma`rifah. ‘Ibn Al-Jawzī, G. A. (1987). Nuzhat al-ùyuūn an-nawāžir fi
Al-Zarkashī, A. B. (1984). Al-burhān fi ùlūm Al-Qurʾaān ìlm al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir (The journey of scruti
(The evidence in the sciences of the Quran). Dār Al- nizing eyes in the science of senses and referents).
Turāth. Muʾsasat Al-Risaālah.
Antonova, M. B. (2020). The container image schema as ‘Ibn àshūr, M. A. (1984). Tafsīr At-taĥrīr wa-at-tanwīr (The
the conceptual basis of English adjectives’ semantics. interpretation of compilation and enlightenment). Al-
Journal of Language & Education, 6(1), 8–17. https:// Dār At-Tunisīyah.
doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.9751 ‘Ibn Manžūr, A. M. (1993). Lisaān Al-Àrab (The Tongue of
Ar-Rāzī, M. F. (1981). Tafsīr al-fakhr al-rāzī (Interpretation the Arabs). Dār Şadr.
of Al-Faḫr Ar-Rāzy). Dār al-fikr li-Al-Ṭibaāàh wa-Al- Lane, E. W. (1968). An Arabic-English lexicon. Librairie du
Nashr wa-Al-Tawzī`. Liban.
Ar-Rāzī, M. A. A. (1986). Mukhtaār al-şaĥĥāĥ. Maktabat Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic
Libnān. introduction. Oxford University Press.
Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual Leech, G. (1974). Semantics. Penguin.
fields. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, Löbner, S. (2002). Understanding Semantics. Routledge.
and Contrasts (pp. 21–74). Erlbaum. Löbner, S. (2021). Frames at the interface of language
Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of Semiology. Cape. and cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics, 7(1),
Bin-Sallām, Y. (2007). At-taşaārīf – Tafsīr Al-Qur’aān mimā 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics
ishtabahat ‘asmaā’uhu wa-taşarraft maàānīh -042920-030620
(Declension -The Interpretation of the Qur’anic Loewen, S., & Plonsky, L. (2016). An A-Z of applied lin
Lexemes with similar forms and different senses). guistics research methods. Palgrave.
Muàsasat àāl Al-Bayt Al-Malakīyah li-Al-Fikr Al- Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 1). Cambridge University
ìslamī. Press.
Bin-Sulaymaān, M. (2011). Al-wujuūh wa-an-nažaā’ir fi Al- Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics – An introduction.
Qur’aān Al-’aẓīm (the senses and referents in the Cambridge University Press.
great Quran). Maktabat Al-Rushd. Musahar, S. J., Talib, H., Musahar, R., Azmi, F., & Zakaria, M. Z.
Blutner, R. (1998). Lexical pragmatics. Journal of (2018). Ambiguity in holy Qur’an commentaries: The use
Semantics, 15(2), 115–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/ of polysemic words “Imam & Ummah”. Proceedings of
jos/15.2.115 the Regional Conference on Science, Technology and
Blutner, R. (2004). Pragmatics and the lexicon. In Social Sciences (RCSTSS 2016), 443–454. https://doi.org/
L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics 10.1007/978-981-13-0203-9_41
(pp. 488–514). Blackwell. Norén, K., & Linell, P. (2007). Meaning potentials and the
Cruse, D. A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction interaction between lexis and contexts: An empirical
to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford University substantiation. Pragmatics, 17(3), 387–416. https://
Press. doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.3.03nor
Cruse, D. A. (2017). The lexicon. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees- Palmer, F. R. (1976). Semantics (2nd ed). Cambridge
Miller (Eds.), The handbook of linguistics (pp. University Press.
235–255). Wiley. Raghunath, R. (2022). Possible worlds theory, accessibility
Epstein, B. (2014). How many kinds of glue hold the social relations, and counterfactual historical fiction.
world together? Perspectives on Social Ontology and Journal of Literary Semantics, 51(1), 1–18. https://doi.
Social Cognition, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- org/10.1515/jls-2022-2047
94-017-9147-2_4 Rambaud, M. G. (2012). Basic semantics (Universidad
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of Nacional de Educación a Distancia).
language. Annals of the New York Academy of Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing with ambiguities by underspeci
Sciences. Conference on the Origin and Development fication: Construction, representation and deduction.
of Language and Speech, 280, 20–32. Journal of Semantics, 10(2), 123–179. https://doi.org/
Fillmore, C. (2007). Frame semantics. In V. Evans, 10.1093/jos/10.2.123
B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguis Rice, S. (1996). Prepositional prototypes. In M. Pütz &
tics reader (pp. 238–262). Chippenham. R. Dirven (Eds.), The Construal of space in
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to Language and Thought (pp. 135–165). Mouton de
semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Gruyter.
Page 20 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale Theory, research and application (pp. 225–282).
(Course in general linguistics). Bibliothèque Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-
Scientifique Payot. 9325-6_11
Stalnaker, R. (2017). Reference and necessity. Tribushinina, E. (2008). Cognitive reference points:
A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, 902–919. Semantics beyond the prototypes in adjectives of
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118972090.ch35 space and colour. LOT Publication.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Ullmann, S. (1953). Descriptive semantics and linguistic
Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic struc typology. WORD, 9(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.
ture. Cambridge University Press. 1080/00437956.1953.11659471
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In Ullmann, S. (1957). The principles of semantics (2nd) ed.).
Pick & Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Basil Blackwell.
Page 21 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
Appendix
List of the transliteration symbols and their phonetic description
1. Consonants
Arabic letter Transliteration symbol Phonetic description
‫ﺀ‬ ‘ voiceless glottal stop
‫ﺏ‬ b voiced bilabial stop
‫ﺕ‬ t voiceless dental stop
‫ﺙ‬ th voiceless dental fricative
‫ﺝ‬ j voiced post-alveolar fricative
‫ﺡ‬ ĥ voiceless pharyngeal fricative
‫ﺥ‬ kh voiceless uvular fricative
‫ﺩ‬ d voiced dental stop
‫ﺫ‬ dh voiced dental fricative
‫ﺭ‬ r voiced alveolar trill
‫ﺯ‬ z voiced dental fricative
‫ﺱ‬ s voiceless dental fricative
‫ﺵ‬ sh voiceless palatal fricative
‫ﺹ‬ ş voiceless (emphatic) dental fricative
‫ﺽ‬ đ voiced (emphatic) dental stop
‫ﻁ‬ ţ voiceless (emphatic) dental stop
‫ﻅ‬ ž voiced (emphatic) dental fricative
‫ﻉ‬ ` voiced pharyngeal fricative
‫ﻍ‬ gh voiced velar fricative
‫ﻑ‬ f voiceless labiodentals fricative
‫ﻕ‬ q voiceless uvular stop
‫ﻙ‬ k voiceless velar stop
‫ﻝ‬ l voiced alveolar lateral
‫ﻡ‬ m voiced bilabial nasal
‫ﻥ‬ n voiced alveolar nasal
‫ﻫـ‬ h voiceless glottal fricative
‫ﻭ‬ w voiced bilabial glide
‫ﻱ‬ y voiced palatal glide
2. Vowels
Arabic symbol Transliteration symbol Phonetic description
‫ﻯ‬ á front-open long slightly
rounded vowel
- u half-close back short
rounded vowel
- i close-front short
unrounded vowel
- a half-front open short
unrounded vowel
-‫ُﻭ‬ ū close-back long
rounded vowel
‫ـِﻲ‬ ī close-front long
unrounded vowel
‫ـَﺎ‬ ā back-open long
unrounded vowel
Page 22 of 23
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969
© 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Cogent Arts & Humanities (ISSN: 2331-1983) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
Page 23 of 23

Exploring The Referential Range of Etymologically Related Lexical Pairs in The Language of The Qur An A Cognitive Semantic Approach

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Referential Range of Etymologically Related Lexical Pairs in The Language of The Qur An A Cognitive Semantic Approach

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cogent Arts & Humanities

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaah20

Exploring the referential range of etymologically-

Waheed M. A. Altohami & Ayman Khafaga

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2023.2185969

© 2023 The Author(s). This open access

Published online: 06 Mar 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 101

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

LITERATURE, LINGUISTICS & CRITICISM | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Subjects: Religion; Language & Linguistics; Literature

Keywords: conceptual schema; connotation; etymology; frame semantics; referential

4.1. Data collection and description

4.2. Procedure of analysis

1 ‫ﺃَ ۡﻣِﻦ‬ security 5 11 ‫ِﺭﯾﺢ‬ wind 18

2 ‫َﻣ ّﯿِﺖ‬ dead 15 12 ‫َﻧ َّﺰَﻝ‬ send down 24

8 ‫َﺗَﺒَّﺪﻝ‬ change 6 18 ‫َﺗۡﺴِﻄﻊ‬ endure 1

Table 2. The frequency of rīĥ and riyāĥ in the Qur’anic text

• [8:46] ‫َﻭﺃَِﻃﻴُﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠََّﻪ َﻭَﺭُﺳﻮﻟَُﻪ َﻭَﻻ َﺗَﻨﺎَﺯُﻋﻮﺍ َﻓَﺘْﻔَﺸﻠُﻮﺍ َﻭَﺗْﺬَﻫَﺐ ِﺭﻳُﺤُﻜْﻢ‬

wa ‘aţī`ū allaha wa rasūlahu wa lā tanāza`ū fatafshalū wa tadh/haba rīĥukum

• [3:117] ‫ﺻﺎَﺑْﺖ َﺣْﺮَﺙ َﻗْﻮٍﻡ َﻇﻠَُﻤﻮﺍ ﺃَْﻧُﻔَﺴُﻬْﻢ َﻓﺄَْﻫﻠََﻜْﺘُﻪ‬

• [41:16] ‫ﺻًﺮﺍ ِﻓﻲ ﺃََّﻳﺎٍﻡ َﻧِﺤَﺴﺎٍﺕ‬ َ ‫َﻓﺄَْﺭَﺳْﻠَﻨﺎ َﻋﻠَْﻴِﻬْﻢ ِﺭﻳًﺤﺎ‬

fa’arsalnā `alayhim rīĥāan şarşarāan fī ’ayyāmin naĥisātin

“So We sent against them a furious Wind through days of disaster”

• [30:51] ‫ﺼَﻔًّﺮﺍ ﻟََﻈﻠُّﻮﺍ ِﻣْﻦ َﺑْﻌِﺪِﻩ َﻳْﻜُﻔُﺮﻭَﻥ‬

wa la’in ‘arsalnā rīĥāan fara’awhu muşfarrāan lažallū min ba`dihi yakfurūn

wa lisulaymāna ar-rīĥa ghudūwuhā shahrun wa rawāĥuhā shahr

fasakhkharnā lahu ar-rīĥa tajrī bi’amrihi rukhā’an ĥaythu ‘aşāb

“in yasha” yuskini ar-rīĥa fayažlalna rawākida `alá žahrihi

• [8:46] ‫َﻭﺃَِﻃﻴُﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻠََّﻪ َﻭَﺭُﺳﻮﻟَُﻪ َﻭَﻻ َﺗَﻨﺎَﺯُﻋﻮﺍ َﻓَﺘْﻔَﺸﻠُﻮﺍ َﻭَﺗْﺬَﻫَﺐ ِﺭﻳُﺤُﻜْﻢ‬

wa ‘aţī`ū allaha wa rasūlahu wa lā tanāza`ū fatafshalū wa tadhhaba rīĥukum

wa lammā faşalati al-`īru qāla “abūhum ”innī la’ajidu rīĥa yūsufa

Table 3. The referential range of rīĥ

Wa huwa al-ladhī yursilu ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday raĥmatihi

wa huwa al-ladhī ’arsala ar-riyāĥa bushrāan bayna yaday raĥmatihi

Wa min “āyātihi ”an yursila ar-riyāĥa mubashshirātin wa liyudhīqakum min raĥmatihi

Table 4. The referential range of riyāĥ

wa “arsalnā ar-riyāĥa lawāqiĥa fa’anzalnā mina as-samā’i mā’an fa’asqaynākumūhu wa mā

You might also like